[...] The inability to enforce the law encourages illegal immigrants to come here and some commit murders like the death of Robert Krentz.

I must say that I strongly disagree with that sentence. Although you didn't write it explicitly, it seems that you're implying that illegal immigrants come to commit murders.

Other then drug cartels, illegal immigrants don't come to the US to commit murder. Although if illegal immigrants were unable to stay in the country, because the law is being enforced, then they would not try to come here illegally in the first place. If illegal immigrants were not invading the southern border, then people like Robert Krentz wouldn't have to die.

I agree with Zhampir. A cop can make up a reason to pull me over. If it's just the two of us in there, it's my word against his word. Nonetheless, most of them will not do that, but we know that there are prejudiced people everywhere.

When you show the cop your drivers licence, then what can he do? Other then give you a ticket for the crime he pulled you over for, he can't do anything new against legal immigrants and US citizens. This law doesn't give cops anymore power to harass US citizens, then they had before the law was passed. If a prejudiced cop wants to harass American hispanics over traffic violations, then he will do so with or without the new law.

The wording they use there is a little tricky. It says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

The bill has been revised to where the word "solely" has been removed. If you listen to the rhetoric of the protesters, then you will noticed that their major issue with the bill is that the law punishes illegal immigrants. Punishing illegal immigrants isn't unconsitutional, so people are pretending that bill is promoting racial profiling to have the courts throw out the bill.

Since about 70% of Arizonans and 60% of Americans support the bill, does that mean that there is widespread racism the Uninited States? Or is more likely that the people support enforcing a bill that helps enforces the law in a non-racist way?

It's not that I don't believe you--I just like to read these things for myself.

Anyway, that's good that they changed that! I think the reason many people are still concerned about the bill is that they don't trust law enforcement officers (already somewhat notorious for racial profiling) to enforce the law even-handedly with the threat of lawsuits from private citizens hanging over their heads.

Anyway, that's good that they changed that! I think the reason many people are still concerned about the bill is that they don't trust law enforcement officers (already somewhat notorious for racial profiling) to enforce the law even-handedly with the threat of lawsuits from private citizens hanging over their heads.

Racial profiling is a pretext to prevent an increase in deportations. I can tell this is true, because the revised bill better clairfies when an officer can ask someone for identification and it also improves the anti-racial profiling text, yet the outrage hasn't died down. The outrage hasn't died down, because racial profiling isn't the real issue.

Other then drug cartels, illegal immigrants don't come to the US to commit murder. Although if illegal immigrants were unable to stay in the country, because the law is being enforced, then they would not try to come here illegally in the first place. If illegal immigrants were not invading the southern border, then people like Robert Krentz wouldn't have to die.[...]

Again, I must say that you are being biased. It's not proven that the person who killed Robert Krentz was an illegal immigrant. The article you quoted also refers drug cartels. In fact, since this crime was committed with a fire weapon, my opinion is that it's more likely that someone belonging to a drug cartel committed, not necessarily an illegal immigrant. But hey, I might be biased too! However, it's interesting to read what you wrote in the beginning of the above quote.

Having read a bit more about the bill, my opinion about it got worse. It seems to me that this bill will open the door to more discrimination. Furthermore, I don't see a necessity for it's existence, because it either covers what was already covered by the existing regulations, or it extends the coverage to points beyond what is reasonable. I think it's abusive what's written in "Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification" (starting on page 3, line 33), in particular in B.

Racial profiling is a pretext to prevent an increase in deportations. I can tell this is true, because the revised bill better clairfies when an officer can ask someone for identification and it also improves the anti-racial profiling text, yet the outrage hasn't died down. The outrage hasn't died down, because racial profiling isn't the real issue.

Let's look at the bill again. On one hand, this bill adds no protections against racial profiling that do not already exist under the Constitution. On the other hand, it forces state police to enforce federal immigration law (which they otherwise would have no obligation to do), requires them to enforce the law as strictly as possible, and allows private citizens standing to sue the police if they do not enforce the law as strictly as possible.

You might find this bill's safeguards against racial profiling adequate, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't honestly concerned about the bill's potential effects.

Let's look at the bill again. On one hand, this bill adds no protections against racial profiling that do not already exist under the Constitution. On the other hand, it forces state police to enforce federal immigration law (which they otherwise would have no obligation to do), requires them to enforce the law as strictly as possible, and allows private citizens standing to sue the police if they do not enforce the law as strictly as possible.

You might find this bill's safeguards against racial profiling adequate, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't honestly concerned about the bill's potential effects.

If the federal government won't enforce the law and protect its people, then why is it wrong for state law enforcement to do it for them? In safe-haven cities like Tucosn and Phoenix, the mayors tell law enforcement officers to let unlicense drivers(likely illegal immgrants) go. To make sure those cops enforce the law, the citizens need to be able to sue law enforcenment for not doing their jobs.

The accustions of racial profiling are a distraction of the real issue people have with the bill. Is it wrong to punish illegal immigrants for breaking the law because they have good intentions? For breaking the law, should illegal immigrants continue to be rewarded with free health care and education without paying taxes? Should we continue to allow illegal immigrants to steal jobs when so many Americans are unemployed?

Those are some pretty loaded questions there. Not to mention, some pretty bold accusations, seemingly based solely on your opinion of what you think other people think (which is, as I said, quite bold). Honestly, I do think that any bill that attempts to deal with immigration is a step in the right direction (regardless of which direction you decide to go in). I think the law will likely be used by some to harass those of certain races. That's the world that we live in. I also think that it would help with getting people off their collective arses on the immigration issue (and hopefully not drive people further into an angry standoff). I can see the positives of deportation and amnesty. Surely either would have a better effect than staying forever deadlocked in indecision on the issue. I'm not a big fan of the ability to sue police officers for using their own judgment, when it is a bit too forgiving for another citizens taste. There are already too many frivolous law suits in this country. Some of the ones this will allow may be well founded, but for each of them there are likely to be two that are brought about by greedy or lazy pricks.

Of course that's just my personal feeling on a cursory glance of an old-ish issue.

If this law was in effect during 2001 in Florida, then September 11th ringleader Mohamed Atta would have been arested for being in the country illegally. Since he was an unlicensed driver, the cop would have found out that the future-terrorist has an expired visa and the cop would have turned him over to the federal government. Unfortunately this senario didn't happen and many suffered for it.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.-George Santayana

I am curiose to know how many anti-immigration enforcement people have read the bill. One of the leaders against Arizona's bill, Attorney General Eric Holder hasn't even read the bill, yet he strongly opposes. The left opposes the bill because they perfer open-border/amnesty immigration policies that increase the number of Democrat voters.

Honestly, I would be rather surprised if the Arizona bill didn't increase the number of Democratic voters.

The article thinks to long term, when things change in a generation. Almost all African Americans vote for Democrats when Democrats are the party that created the Jim Crow Laws, while Republicans are the party that freed the slaves.

I am not running for office, so I only care about people following the law. Democrats don't really think the law is immoral, they think it is the wrong direction to go. They perfer the open-border/amnesty direction. To me, amnesty for illegal immigration is like giving free cars to carjackers.